Sunday, October 18, 2015

Founder Of Kentucky Bigfoot Group Got A Good Look At Bigfoot

Michael Cook, the founder of the Kentucky Sasquatch team has been asked to speak at the upcoming Big Sky Bigfoot Conference in Montana. Cook had a sighting of a bigfoot in 2000 from approximately 50 feet away. He was able to get a really good look at the creature, which he claims didn't really look like what you'd expect.

“I saw a creature 7 ½ to 8 feet tall at Martins Fork Lake in October of 2000,” said Cook. “This creature was on two legs and I was within 50 feet of it…everything you think you know about how Bigfoot looks is nothing compared to what Bigfoot actually looks like.”

Cook said the creature he saw did not look like a gorilla or any of the familiar versions of Bigfoot you see in movies.

“This thing was 7 ½ to 8 feet tall, and it was probably about 350 to 400 pounds,” Cook said. “You’d think that would be fat, but it wasn’t. It was lean, muscular and built…It had long legs that were half the body length. The arms hung down almost to its knees. It didn’t walk slumped over or hunched over…it was covered in dark, reddish brown hair.”

Cook said the creature’s face did resemble the common conception of Bigfoot’s appearance.

“It had a flat nose,” Cook said. “Its cheeks weren’t exposed like you see on “Harry and the Hendersons” or anything like that. The thing I noticed most about it was it did have four fingers and a thumb.”

For the rest of the article, click here.


  1. Replies
    1. What is bigfoot but a man in a suit with big flat feet carved from wood.

    2. Ohhhhh!!!!!!!!!........Myyyyyy!!!!!.....Joergggg!!!!!!!

      Joe, lets get together with Uno and make up fake indian girl accounts. We can compliment each other on our hair. It will be amazing!

      John W. Jones Spoke

    3. 7:33... Then you wouldn't have dermals, unknown primate hair and reports of 9 foot hairy hominids, then would we?

    4. Dermals are easily faked, many people have done it and shown how the did it. Primate hair? lol. According to who? The hair always comes back HUMAN, not unknown primate. The only people who claim its an unknown primate are ketchum and sykes............oh wait, sykes determined the hair to be bear. AH HAHAHAHA. So basically the only people claiming unknown primate are melba ketchum, and the people on monster quest. Way to go Joe, you the man. Now copy and paste some quotes about unknown primate hair in your fury to try and justify your thoughts. And yes, we would have reports of big hairy giants. Just as we have reports of santa, wendigos, shapeshifters, skinwalkers, etc. You will always have people making up things and trying to seek fame or notoriety. Just as you yourself, Joe, try and seek fame and notoriety on this site. Its a very sad existence. At least a few years ago this site had quite a few people who visited it. Yes you are well known on this site, too bad the site is now frequented by less then maybe 30 people a day. You are king of the comment section alright. All 5 or 6 commenters are in awe of you. Congrats Joe. And you better watch out, the dudes at the ISF are getting ready to squash you with a thread solely devoted to your ignorance. Real name will be included.

    5. To hoax convincing biological dermals, one would have to have a knowledge of primate dermals (that not many do), have a lottery win's chance of faking the same biological idea, and then fool multiple forensic experts (that dermals have in favour of their authenticity).

      ... Half way down the above link; a comparison of casting artefacts and biological dermals. Casting artefacts would be present in consistency right across the different soil areas of the foot fall and in the examples of casts that have biological dermals; they're not. The delta ridges on prints change directions over 45 degrees; they converge and deviate. This is a major indicator that the dermals are biological and as the actual experts state, these do not appear on any of the casting artefacts. The fact that these dermals are also States and decades apart, very, very relevant.

      Actually, the unique uniform morphology of hair samples are what is described as coming from a "wild human"; humans are primates. These have been verified by multiple camps of primatologists and have at times been acquired via a sighting and track accumulations. And why do hair samples keep coming back with human DNA? Because they are human... Oh, and you still might be ejaculating about Sykes' participation on Bigfoot Files... But;

      1) In an unnumbered chapter after Chapter 27, entitled “Postscript,” Sykes details an intriguing finding from a hair sample from Dr. Henner Fahrenbach. It had a result that Sykes is still pondering, and we may hear about in the future. The DNA sample of a “Sasquatch” from Walla Walla matched that of a feral “individual from Uzbekistan,” Sykes exclaims (page 282).
      (2) Sykes’ verdict on Zana, an alleged almasty captured in the 1850s on the southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains, is a nod to the labor of the Russian hominologists during four decades of the Snowman Commission at Moscow’s Darwin Museum. The mainstream media has completely misinterpreted what Sykes’ book has to say about this, and talk of Zana being an “escaped African slave” demeans what appears to be the genetic realities behind the case. You must read Sykes’ Chapter 29, to fully appreciate what he has discovered.
      “Part-human, part-ape with dark skin (Zana means ‘black’ in Abkhaz) she was covered with long, reddish-brown hair which formed a mane down her back. She was large, about 6’6″ tall, and extremely muscular with exaggerated, hairless buttocks and large breasts. Her face was wide with high cheekbones and a broad nose,” notes Sykes (page 296).
      Zana was no slave from Africa, but an individual with genetics who tells us much more about the population from which she sprang. As Bryan Sykes hints, “Zana’s ancestors could have left Africa before the Laran exodus of 100,000 year ago” and “they might well be still there [in the Caucasus Mountains] to this day, living as they have for millennia somewhere in the wild valleys that radiate from the eternal snows of Elbrus,” (page 306)."
      - Loren Coleman

      ... Go tell those fundies over at the ISF that I'm shaking in my boots. Ha ha ha ha ha!!

    6. You know what makes me laugh Anon 8:26? Time after time breathless announcements by footers announcing proof is just around the corner and then . . . nothing. Melba's first attempt was an abysmal failure and now she announces she has proof once again but we are stilling waiting for it. It was determined Sykes results were faulty but he has announced that he has a paper coming out which will prove his case but once again we have been waiting and waiting for it. It's always just around the bend, just around the corner, just down the road and then if something IS presented it's ALWAYS inconclusive. Now Joe/lktomi can huff and puff all he wants with his small band of 5 or 6 supporters but the bottom line is nothing conclusive has been proven and we are continue to wait for the proof he says is coming. With all the people supposedly out looking for Bigfoot it just seems unrealistic that it could elude the world for so long. If what you say about the ISF is true I will have to pop over there - should be greatly entertaining.

    7. How does Sykes know what "Zana" really looked like? Are there photos? People exaggerate and embellish you know. The tales get twisted and added on over the course of time. If I recall her son was tested and the mitochondrial DNA showed he was 100% human. So once again you have only STORIES and hearsay to support your argument.

    8. Arrrrrrrrgh, the pseudosceptics' bible... Melba Ketchum. How many times do you guys need to name drop someone who's having a second round of testing?

      No... Disinformation... Sykes' bear findings were challenged right off the bat, as hybrid bears are nothing new. It's lucky that Sykes' field of expertise is in human genetics, right? Lies, lies, lies, lies; that's all you kids appear to have. Oh... And your patience is not to the detriment of the truth on his future publishings. You'd thought he would have learned after looking so stupid after the Bigfoot Files, right?

      There is nothing inconclusive about the forensic sign being left by these creatures. For all your moaning, there is at least proof of a large unclassified bipedal primate leaving it's sign on the environment of the US... If I thought you could understand the big words, I'd proceed and explain to you the relevance of principles such as Occam's Razor.

    9. How does Sykes know this? Did you really just ask that?? Because you have the anecdotes of an entire community, and her son's skulls that is testament to her morphological features. Also, 9:04... Did you actually read my comment regarding his human lineage? Sasquatch are human... Learnt to read.

    10. Your "evidence" is absolutely inconclusive until is has been recognized by the world at large. There is as much evidence and proof for the existence of UFO's as Bigfoot but are they recognized as being something out of the norm rather than explained away naturally? The answer is the same - no.

      As for a Sykes - if his expertise is human genetics that perhaps he should refrain from making statements about bear DNA. It makes the rest of his comments suspect and cautious to accept. Hopefully he will have a better case when his paper comes out - of course it will be scrutinized heavily and if it passes muster you may have a case. We shall see.

      Yes anecdotes, stories, hearsay . . . all passed down from over 125 years ago from an isolated community. No one alive today to question. No one ever lies or embellishes - right? As for her son's skull there was absolutely nothing out of the human range that was different with that skull. Now for Bigfoot being a human I may ask - does Patty look like a human to you?

    11. Sorry... Science is science. No ad hominem argument, no safety net argument cuts it, and you fall into the most character painting of traps it's brilliant. There is nothing in science, in it's regular breakthroughs that states it has to be embraced by a larger, less qualified and more mainstream community before it's deemed solid. Embarrassingly for you and your naive sentiment, even your most adhered of mainstream scientific processes do not act this way (peer review process). You need to go back to school my friend.

      I really don't think Sykes would take recommendations from someone who doesn't get that.

      Anecdotes, stories, hearsay... All passed down from over 125 years ago from an isolated community... And we we just do happen to have the skull with the same ancient, not modern morphological features to show for it. Come one man, denial will eat away at the common sense in you;

      "Anthropologist M.A.Kolodieva compared the skull of Khwit with the male skulls from Abkhazia in the collection of the Moscow State University Institute of Anthropology and found that Khwit's skull was significantly different. Indicating it as the Tkhina skull, she writes:

      The Tkhina skull exhibits an original combination of modem and ancient features ... The facial section of the skull is significantly larger in comparison with the mean Abkhaz type ... All the measurements and indices of the superciliary cranial contour are greater not only than those of the mean Abkhaz series, but also than those of maximum size of some fossil skulls studied (or rather were comparable with the latter). The Tkhina skull approaches closest the Neolithic Vovnigi II skulls of the fossil series...
      On her part, anthropologist M.M.Gerasimova came to following conclusions:
      The skull discloses a great deal of peculiarity, a certain disharmony disequilibrium in its features, very large dimensions of the facial skeleton, increased development of the contour of the skull, specificity of the non-metric features (the two foramina mentale in the lower jaw, the intrusive bones in the sagittal suture, and the Inca bone). The skull merits further extended study."

      Nothing out of the ordinary there, yeah? Oh, and Patty, without hair on her face looks just like an ancient human;